Department of Anesthesiology, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA.
Department of Anesthesiology, Legacy Emmanuel Medical Center, Portland, OR.
J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2021 Apr 1;33(2):167-171. doi: 10.1097/ANA.0000000000000655.
Despite advances in perioperative neuroscience, there is low interest among anesthesiology trainees to pursue subspecialty training in neuroanesthesiology. We conducted a pilot survey to assess attitudes about neuroanesthesiology fellowship training.
A confidential survey was distributed to an international cohort of anesthesiology attendings and trainees between January 15, 2017 and February 26, 2017.
A total of 463 responses were received. Overall, 309 (67%), 30 (6%), 116 (25%), and 8 (2%) of respondents identified themselves as attendings, fellows, residents, and "other," respectively. In total, 390 (84%) of respondents were from the United States. Individuals typically pursue anesthesiology fellowship training because of interest in the subspecialty, acquisition of a special skill set, and the role of fellowship training in career planning and advancement. Overall, 64% of attendings, 56% of fellows, and 55% of residents favored accreditation of neuroanesthesiology fellowships, although opinion was divided regarding the role of accreditation in increasing interest in the specialty. Respondents believe that increased opportunities for research and greater exposure to neurocritical care and neurological monitoring methods would increase interest in neuroanesthesiology fellowship training. Perceived barriers to neuroanesthesiology fellowship training were perceptions that residency provides adequate training in neuroanesthesiology, that a unique skill set is not acquired, and that there are limited job opportunities available to those with neuroanesthesiology fellowship training.
In this pilot survey, we identified several factors that trainees consider when deciding to undertake subspecialty training and barriers that might limit interest in pursuing neuroanesthesiology subspecialty training. Our findings may be used to guide curricular development and identify factors that might increase interest among trainees in pursuing neuroanesthesiology fellowship training.
尽管围手术期神经科学取得了进展,但麻醉学受训者对神经麻醉学专业培训的兴趣较低。我们进行了一项试点调查,以评估对神经麻醉学研究员培训的态度。
2017 年 1 月 15 日至 2 月 26 日,我们向麻醉学主治医生和住院医生的国际队列分发了一份机密调查。
共收到 463 份回复。总的来说,309(67%),30(6%),116(25%)和 8(2%)的受访者分别将自己视为主治医生,研究员,住院医师和“其他”。总共,390(84%)的受访者来自美国。人们通常因为对亚专业的兴趣,获得特殊技能,以及研究员培训在职业规划和发展中的作用而选择进行麻醉学研究员培训。总的来说,64%的主治医生,56%的研究员和 55%的住院医师赞成为神经麻醉学研究员提供认证,尽管在认证是否会增加对该专业的兴趣方面存在分歧。受访者认为,增加研究机会,更多地接触神经危重病学和神经监测方法,将增加对神经麻醉学研究员培训的兴趣。神经麻醉学研究员培训的障碍是认为住院医师培训提供了足够的神经麻醉学培训,没有获得独特的技能,并且那些具有神经麻醉学研究员培训的人可获得的工作机会有限。
在这项试点调查中,我们确定了受训者在决定接受专业培训时考虑的一些因素,以及可能限制对神经麻醉学专业培训兴趣的障碍。我们的发现可用于指导课程开发,并确定可能增加受训者对神经麻醉学研究员培训兴趣的因素。